G.R. No. 110715 December 12, 1997
ELBERT TAN, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS AND PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Elbert Tan was charged with estafa under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code for defrauding Mariano S. Macias. The information alleged that Tan, knowing he was not the owner, sold a four-wheeler Isuzu truck to Macias for P92,000. Macias paid P17,000 in cash and transferred ownership of his school bus, valued at P65,000, to Tan. Tan failed to deliver the truck. During preliminary investigation, Tan paid Macias P22,000 and they executed a compromise agreement where Tan promised to return P45,000. The fiscal’s office initially dropped the charge but refiled it after Tan failed to comply. At arraignment, Tan pleaded not guilty. After the prosecution rested, Tan filed a Motion for Leave to File Demurrer to Evidence. The trial court, in its Order dated July 29, 1988, stated that leave was unnecessary under the then Section 15, Rule 119, but warned Tan that filing a demurrer would waive his right to present evidence. Tan filed a demurrer, which the trial court denied in its Order dated December 9, 1988, ruling that the case was submitted for decision based on the prosecution’s evidence as Tan had waived his right to present evidence. The trial court convicted Tan. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. Tan assailed the decision, arguing, among others, that the trial court’s act of not giving due course to his motion for leave should be considered an implied leave of court and that there was novation of the obligation.

ISSUE

1. Whether petitioner lost his right to present evidence after filing a demurrer to evidence without express leave of court.
2. Whether the compromise agreement and partial payment novated the obligation and extinguished petitioner’s criminal liability.

RULING

1. Yes. Petitioner lost his right to present evidence. The trial court unequivocally warned petitioner that filing a demurrer to evidence would constitute a waiver of his right to adduce evidence, pursuant to Section 15, Rule 119 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure. Notwithstanding this warning, petitioner filed the demurrer. The rule at the time provided that when an accused files a demurrer to evidence, he waives the right to present evidence. It was immaterial whether leave of court was obtained. The subsequent amendment requiring leave of court did not apply retroactively to petitioner’s case. Having waived his right, petitioner could not adduce evidence after his demurrer was denied.
2. No. The compromise agreement and partial payment did not novate the obligation or extinguish petitioner’s criminal liability. Novation is not one of the grounds for extinguishing criminal liability under the Revised Penal Code. A compromise agreement in a criminal case for estafa, and the partial payment made pursuant thereto, affects only the civil liability arising from the crime, not the criminal liability itself. The payment merely reduced, but did not extinguish, the civil liability. Petitioner’s failure to comply with the compromise agreement did not bar his prosecution. The criminal liability remains.